←back to thread

647 points bradgessler | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.238s | source
Show context
abathologist ◴[] No.44010933[source]
I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years.

The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they will be automated away.

I don't mean that their jobs will be automated: I mean that they will cede sapience and resign to becoming robotic. A robot is just a "person whose work or activities are entirely mechanical" (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=robot).

I'm afraid far too many are captive to the ideology of productionism (which is just a corollary of consumerism). Creative activity is not about content production. The aim of our creation is communication and mutual-transformation. Generation of digital artifacts may be useful for these purposes, but most uses seem to assume content production is the point, and that is a dark, sad, dead end.

replies(6): >>44011338 #>>44011643 #>>44012297 #>>44012674 #>>44012689 #>>44017606 #
fennecbutt ◴[] No.44011338[source]
99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen.

Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible.

Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

replies(16): >>44011373 #>>44011433 #>>44011440 #>>44011470 #>>44011473 #>>44011609 #>>44011611 #>>44011656 #>>44011742 #>>44011785 #>>44011971 #>>44012311 #>>44012336 #>>44012625 #>>44012927 #>>44018665 #
bccdee ◴[] No.44011971[source]
No, that's not true.

Quick, what's 51 plus 92?

Now: Did you think back to a time someone else added these numbers together, or are you doing it yourself, right now, in your head? I'm sure it's not the first time these numbers have ever been summed, but that doesn't matter. You're doing it now, independently.

Just because something isn't unique, doesn't make it derivative. We rediscover things every day.

replies(3): >>44013494 #>>44013884 #>>44015379 #
treebirg ◴[] No.44013494[source]
But I do know what numbers are. I've also done addition before, so I know what the steps are. The result of 51 + 92 is derivative from (at least) these two concepts, which derive from others and so on. Maybe I'm stretching the meaning of derivative here, but to me derivative doesn't mean strictly recalling something verbatim.
replies(1): >>44014623 #
1. bccdee ◴[] No.44014623[source]
I do think you're stretching the meaning of derivative. At that point, what can ever be called original? Every idea depends on pre-existing concepts. Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.